This whole unionization of the tech-sector is a big joke.
Damn right. How can the unions push their old divisive "us and them" politics-of-envy when the workers between them actually own a fairly significant percentage of the company, have great benefits and training, and a huge amount of flexibility in their working practices?
Unions are simply a facade over mob rule, the sooner they are eliminated the better it will be for the entire industry. Unions typically have rules of seniority, inferior workers who simply happen to have served longer are judged as more worthy highly skilled and motivated staff, for example. Unionism is so laughable I can scarcely believe high tech workers would even consider it!
As for the microtemps, they knew what they were getting into, and have no cause for complaint now. Envy is their sole motivation, and the desire to take by force that which they have not earned.
People who don't have a high level of proficiency with computers are not stupid, generally speaking.
You're correct - I don't have any sort of a problem at all with ignorance, in fact I often go out of my way to help people, and teach them.
But there are plenty of people who are just plain stupid. For example, I had to explain to an allegedly computer literate cow-orker recently that if you saved a file under one name, then called it another name in your script, the system wouldn't be able to find it! I've had to explain to one person who was apparently a programmer that if yu called all your variables the same name, the computer wouldn't be able to tell them apart! These are just a few examples - not of ignorance, but plain, can't-be-bothered-to-think stupidity.
We'd all laugh at someone who picked up a telephone and expected to be instantly connected to their party without dialling a number - why is that any different from someone who types 'PRINT' and doesn't bother to specify the file to print?!
Thats whats really wrong with this industry, all these people that think they are super duper hot shots, and they don't know crap, but at least they know more then the average monkey. Then they go and screw everything up, and then when they fix their own mistake, management is like, your so smart.
As y'all know, I've done a lot of work on the NT platform, and in my experience about 80% of NT problems can be traced to poor systems administration (about 15% more are caused by deploying it into inappropriate roles, and about 5% because of flaws in NT). Why is such a large proportion due to this cause? It's because NT looks like Win95 on the surface, a simple, domestic OS, and it's very easy for people to bluff their way into sysadmin roles on the NT platform - there are people calling themselves Domain Administrators who I wouldn't trust to look after a digital watch, much less an enterprise computing resource! And there's no way to find out until a recovery situation for most companies, as they lack the skills for a truly rigorous hiring process. This isn't a criticism - after all, that's why people get hired, to bring a skill into the company in the first place!
I've never worked with Netware, but I gather the Novell folk found themselves in a similar situation in the early 90's. A bunch of people who could manage the basics were placed in positions of responsibility, and when the situation arose that required deadly skills, they just weren't capable. And everyone suffered for this: the corporates didn't have the network support they needed, the operators were humiliated and fired, and the industry as a whole was blamed. However, the CNA/CNE programme went a long way to weeding out the incompetent, and the MCP programme is starting to have an impact in the quality of NT staff.
Any kid can download linux and teach themselves, which is a good thing when viewed abstractly, but it will definitely result in a lot more people on the market who, whether intentionally or not, grossly exagerate and misrepresent their own skills. This can only be a bad thing, it will bring ill-repute on the sysadmin profession.
I've read a bunch of posts on this topic - could someone please explain objectively to me why when Transmeta patent something it's good, but when Microsoft patent it's bad?
Not if the user doesn't know SMS is there. Here's the "evil use of SMS" scenario: I'm a cracker wanting to take remote control of Joe User's computer. So I sneak into Joe's office when Joe isn't there and has forgotten to password-protect his screensaver, and I install SMS from the CD-ROM I always carry with me.
SMS displays an indication to the user that they are under remote control
SMS cannot be installed without access to SQL Server and the Domain Controller anyway. An administrator with these privileges would not need SMS!
SMS is a legitimate, supported product for remote installation and helpdesk functions. If you think remote access to a user workstation is a bad thing, best disable telnetd/sshd/rsh on your LAN now. Many Unix users like to criticise MS for lack of remote administration, SMS is Microsoft's answer. It can install a software package unattended and remotely - you can, for example, upgrade a thousand installations of Office to the latest version overnight, easy. You can audit machines and check whether your office in Malaysia needs more memory in their machines before deploying your latest application, all sorts of cool stuff like that. Warez k1dz hate SMS cos it finds their pirate software and the LAN admin busts them for it.
cDc are a self-proclaimed malicious hacker group, and released their product to other self-proclaimed hackers at a hacking event. SMS is sold to enterprise customers who legally own their own machines.
iPlanet isn't just a fancy brand, it's the name of Sun project that has been going on for a while. Their big idea is something their Power Client VP referred to as "web tone" - that when you pick up a telephone handset, the dial tone is taken for granted, it's so reliable and ubiquitous, and that's what Sun want the "web top" (your vitrual desktop) to be - a complete working environment, delivered securely to wherever you are in the world using a standard web browser + some fancy app server technology on the middle tier. Most likely Oracle technology on the back end, since Sun and Oracle are very firmly in bed these days (as anyone who attended the iDevelop conferences will tell you). Renaming the products is just bringing them into alignment with Sun's own conventions.
Most people don't like toys and don't think children should be able to play with toys. But I'm a big fan of toys, and I think it helps kids be able to play and expand their imaginations.
Especially if you get a percentage on all their toys, eh George?
TPM was one long advert for merchandising from start to finish. Who needs a story when there are billions to be made from gullible kids?
I'm slightly more concerned about the obviously-Japanese trade federation, who were portrayed as evil, cowardly exploiters. American paranoia over Japanese industrial and commercial superiority is widespread enough in film.
Both Netscape and Oracle provide these systems already, and do quite a good job of it. The Netscape Calendar server has been available for a long time, and Oracle's product is the successor to their InterOffice suite, and supports both iCal and XAPIA for open standards access to the server from third party clients.
In addition, calendaring is provided by MS Exchange/Outlook (very powerful and easy to use, I might add) and Lotus (altho' I've never used this product).
If Open Source wants to compete with these products, it's going to have to be *very* compelling, not simply on price but on features. These packages are based on in-depth studies of how offices actually work: the Open Source community has no analog to work with, and a huge installed base of well established solutions to compete with.
The exact some process is why high-end graphics users are moving to NT away from Macs. Not because NT is better than a Mac for graphics, but just because they are more "compatible" with what clients are using (at least that is one of the more compelling reasons).
Nothing to do with SMP Wintel machines being cheaper than and easily outperforming G3 macintoshes for rendering then? Or the larger hardware acceleration market meaning the best graphics cards are available? Or the larger installed base meaning it's more economical for ISVs to port to NT?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you thought NT was unstable, try MacOS with no protected memory or preemptive multitasking...
This is flat-out false. Read the U.S. Constitution, bub. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." In other words, ain't no such thing as retroactive law.
You're wrong. What constitutes a monoploy is not formally defined in law; it is open to interpretation by the court. If the court choose to regard an act as monopolist, there is no objective way to predict this before the verdict is reached, and vice versa.
The Sherman Act is deliberately vague like this. While the letter of the law cannot act retroactively, the spirit can, and that's what drives the verdict.
Right. Uh-huh. Now just TRY and get along WITHOUT using Microsoft products in the corporate workplace. Just TRY to see how far you make it.
Try showing up to work naked and see how far you get in business. Try speaking Swahili to all your clients. Try putting orange juice in your car instead of petrol.
You see my point? Just because some things become convention and some don't, that does not constitute coercion.
Ah, I see, so if I choose to copy MS Office from a friend MS would not use force on me, neither by themselves of by calling on the monopolist of physical force?
You don't own Office, you only own a license to use it. You chose to accept the license terms when you first installed it, if you subsequently break them, then you have wilfully broken a contract you freely entered into - which makes you fair game for law enforcement.
It is clear that we each must deal with any other as that other would deal with us. Microsoft choose to deal by the laws of commerce which exist as and when they conduct their actions. You have choses to ignore contract; that makes you the initiator of force.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend? No-one forced you to buy! You are free to go anywhere else! To buy whatever you want, so long as you can afford it and the merchant is willing to sell to you.
The DOJ propose to use force against Microsoft, laws which are backed up by prisons and armed police.
If the/. crowd truly cared about freedom of the individual and of the mind, you'd all be fighting tooth and nail against the DOJ.
I seem to recall a time in Holland (IIRC) when the government changed the working conditions of medical doctors. Many of them wished to leave the country - so the government conscripted them all into the Army to stop them. The moral of this story is clear: The only power governments have is physical force, and one day they might use it on you.
What really pisses me off is he gets caught doing bad things and then has the audacity to get mad about it.
Antitrust law is retroactive, which means that even if something was perfectly legal when you actually did it, if it is subsequently declared illegal you are still liable.
This means that there is no way to tell if you are breaking the law when you do something, because the law doesn't exist yet! Microsoft's phalanx of corporate lawyers would never have broken existing laws, Bill is too smart for that.
software you can tell he believes all software should come from him for some divine reason only he knows about.
As is the goal of all software development projects. If you were to take a straw poll on/. you'd find many people who believe that all software should only come from the open source community by divine right.
Bill was never really a hacker in the first place like so many Unix heroes were/are, he just funded projects and used other people's work to his advantage
More FUD and lies. Bill's simply more successful than anyone else because he was the first to realise the truth: There is no such thing as a software project, there are only business projects with a software element.
Buying out every company with an idea and forcing companies to use only your products isn't "Freedom to Innovate" Bill.
Force is the sole monopoly of governments. The only force here is that applied by the DOJ. Microsoft has no guns and no laws to compel people to obey, only the free judgement of the rational individuals who freely trade with them, everyone from the home PC user to megacorporations like Compaq and IBM. No-one has ever compelled you to trade with MS, you have always done do freely - it is a central fact that no-one has the right to buy whatever they want, only what they are offered for sale.
It has always been possible to buy components and assemble your own PC - even if you are incapable of doing so, you cannot demand the world adapt itself to your whims. You can only buy what is offered for sale - either a preinstalled box or take the time to find a niche manufacturer.
Microsoft's only crime is that they are the ALCOA of the 90's.
The problem with this model is that there is only so much capital to go around, which creates a barrier for would-be builders.
The statement is nonsense. The "problem" with the model is that very few people have the credibility and the experience to attract investment - it's as simple as that.
And, of course, that's exactly how it should be. Investing capital in any venture regardless of merit led directly to the great depression in the '30s, and would quickly break any investor who tried it in the modern world.
Note that the gameplay in Quake, Quake II, Unreal, Half Life &c isn't particularly differentiated: it's the engines (graphics, physics, logic) that set these apart. This is the case to a lesser extent with movies.
Actually, Perl is more like the Rexx of the '90s. Python, if we're drawing analogies not in language model but sociologically is barely even the PL/1 of the 90's.
IBM et al. fully intend to make Java the COBOL of the 00's - literally a common business oriented language. If the industry makes it the Ada of the 00's too, then so much the better (but I do very much like Ada). And I hope they succeed. COBOL itself is obsolete (even Microsfocus Object COBOL) and C++ ins't suitable for large scale projects (for many reasons, many of which are detailed in the Java white papers).
Personally, I prefer to use PL/SQL, and that's going to be the de facto business language for a good long time yet. With that and Java, I don't expect to be obsolete for the next couple of decades.
IPSEC bases its authentication on trusted hosts, not on trusted users. It does not solve the same problem.
This is one of the things that really annoyed me when I started using TCP/IP. With DECnet, users as well as machines are considered network principals, and DECnet protocols mean you can happily grant connections based on node and user,assuming, of course, that you trust VMS login/authentication, but it's very good so there's no reason not to. Especially as so many people are trusting NIS+ and LDAP these days.
The Jedi were born with "powers and abilities beyond those of ordinary mortals". Bill Gates was born with millionair parents.
Really? He actually founded Microsoft with money won playing poker (a la Han Solo winning the Millenium Falcon playing Sabacc).
As for ESR being a hero, what's he actually *done* apart from make a lot of noise? He shouldn't even be mentioned in the same paragraph as the real "heroes" like RMS.
Do you have specifics to back this up? Otherwise it's just more FUD
easy. In Unix systems, you have r00t and the unwashed masses, and that's it.
On NT, you have specific rights like "Back Up the System" or "Log On as a Service" or "Change the System Time" which means you can assign specific rights to specific users without ever needing one All Powerful Account.
A clue: you can't dis NT until you actually know it. Since you don't, nothing you say has any weight.
Is it just me or is the scale of these net.mergers unfathomable?
It would be if they were actually spending real $, but it's mostly stock swaps, which are worth billions on paper, but don't map back onto any sort of assets.
Re:What twisted world do you livein?(Was:RMS &
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
The fundamental freedom from which all other freedoms are derived is the freedom to communicate (aka. freedom of expression, free speech, etc.).
Nonsense. Your life is given to you, your survival is not - it requires the application of your mind. It also requires the right of use and disposal over the creations of actions driven by your mind. Therefore, any idea which opposes private ownership of the product of the mind is anti-survival, and hence evil.
Re:Honest questions...
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
But you can't xerox your car.
Aye - and you can't Xerox a loaf of bread either - but even open source author's gotta eat.
This is why their model is broken; because value must eventually resolve to an asset.
Collectivism or Statism is the belief that the individual serves no purpose other than the will of the Government (or Church). That is to say, the wishes of the individual are considered irrelevant, and his work is considered property of the tribe, to be used and disposed of by their tribe without consultation.
Typically, Collectivist governments participate in policies which appear to support freedom but are in fact the opposite, for example the US government conscripted individuals and sent them out to die to "defend" freedom. But since the government doesn't even respect the right of it's citizens to live, what rights can their possibly be?
Another common Collectivist policy is to penalise the productive, such that the non-productive may benefit.
My problem with RMS is that not only does he wish to give his property away (which, of course, is his right), he wishes to establish a system where everyone is obligated to give away their property. Without property, there can be no other rights.
Well, for what it's worth, RMS may not be a communist, but he certainly is a collectivist, and that's just as bad in my book, But that isn't the point.
What really irritates me is the way Linux is packaged for consumption by the world. Linux is nothing but the kernel itself, yet somehow the "linux community" gets the credit for the complete system (unlike the BSD crowd, who *do* actually maintain the whole lot). And ESR can't keep out of the limelight - he seems to think that since he coined the term "open source" he's in fact personally responsible for the entire movement!
In reality, in terms of LOC or hours worked or any other metric, RMS and his FSF, or the BSD crowd, or UCB are responsible for far more of the average distribution than the "linux community". And it's ESR and his dreams of glory who obstructing the acceptance of the true prime movers, like RMS.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn right. How can the unions push their old divisive "us and them" politics-of-envy when the workers between them actually own a fairly significant percentage of the company, have great benefits and training, and a huge amount of flexibility in their working practices?
Unions are simply a facade over mob rule, the sooner they are eliminated the better it will be for the entire industry. Unions typically have rules of seniority, inferior workers who simply happen to have served longer are judged as more worthy highly skilled and motivated staff, for example. Unionism is so laughable I can scarcely believe high tech workers would even consider it!
As for the microtemps, they knew what they were getting into, and have no cause for complaint now. Envy is their sole motivation, and the desire to take by force that which they have not earned.
You're correct - I don't have any sort of a problem at all with ignorance, in fact I often go out of my way to help people, and teach them.
But there are plenty of people who are just plain stupid. For example, I had to explain to an allegedly computer literate cow-orker recently that if you saved a file under one name, then called it another name in your script, the system wouldn't be able to find it! I've had to explain to one person who was apparently a programmer that if yu called all your variables the same name, the computer wouldn't be able to tell them apart! These are just a few examples - not of ignorance, but plain, can't-be-bothered-to-think stupidity.
We'd all laugh at someone who picked up a telephone and expected to be instantly connected to their party without dialling a number - why is that any different from someone who types 'PRINT' and doesn't bother to specify the file to print?!
Because, as we all know, an academic degree is the best measurement of hands on vendor- and application- specific skills. NOT.
As y'all know, I've done a lot of work on the NT platform, and in my experience about 80% of NT problems can be traced to poor systems administration (about 15% more are caused by deploying it into inappropriate roles, and about 5% because of flaws in NT). Why is such a large proportion due to this cause? It's because NT looks like Win95 on the surface, a simple, domestic OS, and it's very easy for people to bluff their way into sysadmin roles on the NT platform - there are people calling themselves Domain Administrators who I wouldn't trust to look after a digital watch, much less an enterprise computing resource! And there's no way to find out until a recovery situation for most companies, as they lack the skills for a truly rigorous hiring process. This isn't a criticism - after all, that's why people get hired, to bring a skill into the company in the first place!
I've never worked with Netware, but I gather the Novell folk found themselves in a similar situation in the early 90's. A bunch of people who could manage the basics were placed in positions of responsibility, and when the situation arose that required deadly skills, they just weren't capable. And everyone suffered for this: the corporates didn't have the network support they needed, the operators were humiliated and fired, and the industry as a whole was blamed. However, the CNA/CNE programme went a long way to weeding out the incompetent, and the MCP programme is starting to have an impact in the quality of NT staff.
Any kid can download linux and teach themselves, which is a good thing when viewed abstractly, but it will definitely result in a lot more people on the market who, whether intentionally or not, grossly exagerate and misrepresent their own skills. This can only be a bad thing, it will bring ill-repute on the sysadmin profession.
I've read a bunch of posts on this topic - could someone please explain objectively to me why when Transmeta patent something it's good, but when Microsoft patent it's bad?
- SMS displays an indication to the user that they are under remote control
- SMS cannot be installed without access to SQL Server and the Domain Controller anyway. An administrator with these privileges would not need SMS!
- SMS is a legitimate, supported product for remote installation and helpdesk functions. If you think remote access to a user workstation is a bad thing, best disable telnetd/sshd/rsh on your LAN now. Many Unix users like to criticise MS for lack of remote administration, SMS is Microsoft's answer. It can install a software package unattended and remotely - you can, for example, upgrade a thousand installations of Office to the latest version overnight, easy. You can audit machines and check whether your office in Malaysia needs more memory in their machines before deploying your latest application, all sorts of cool stuff like that. Warez k1dz hate SMS cos it finds their pirate software and the LAN admin busts them for it.
- cDc are a self-proclaimed malicious hacker group, and released their product to other self-proclaimed hackers at a hacking event. SMS is sold to enterprise customers who legally own their own machines.
(Yes, I'm an MCSE with SMS elective.)More info Sun's web site.
Especially if you get a percentage on all their toys, eh George?
TPM was one long advert for merchandising from start to finish. Who needs a story when there are billions to be made from gullible kids?
I'm slightly more concerned about the obviously-Japanese trade federation, who were portrayed as evil, cowardly exploiters. American paranoia over Japanese industrial and commercial superiority is widespread enough in film.
In addition, calendaring is provided by MS Exchange/Outlook (very powerful and easy to use, I might add) and Lotus (altho' I've never used this product).
If Open Source wants to compete with these products, it's going to have to be *very* compelling, not simply on price but on features. These packages are based on in-depth studies of how offices actually work: the Open Source community has no analog to work with, and a huge installed base of well established solutions to compete with.
Nothing to do with SMP Wintel machines being cheaper than and easily outperforming G3 macintoshes for rendering then? Or the larger hardware acceleration market meaning the best graphics cards are available? Or the larger installed base meaning it's more economical for ISVs to port to NT?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you thought NT was unstable, try MacOS with no protected memory or preemptive multitasking...
Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." In
other words, ain't no such thing as retroactive law.
You're wrong. What constitutes a monoploy is not formally defined in law; it is open to interpretation by the court. If the court choose to regard an act as monopolist, there is no objective way to predict this before the verdict is reached, and vice versa.
The Sherman Act is deliberately vague like this. While the letter of the law cannot act retroactively, the spirit can, and that's what drives the verdict.
Right. Uh-huh. Now just TRY and get along WITHOUT using Microsoft products in
the corporate workplace. Just TRY to see how far you make it.
Try showing up to work naked and see how far you get in business. Try speaking Swahili to all your clients. Try putting orange juice in your car instead of petrol.
You see my point? Just because some things become
convention and some don't, that does not constitute coercion.
me, neither by themselves of by calling on the monopolist of physical force?
You don't own Office, you only own a license to use it. You chose to accept the license terms when you first installed it, if you subsequently break them, then you have wilfully broken a contract you freely entered into - which makes you fair game for law enforcement.
It is clear that we each must deal with any other as that other would deal with us. Microsoft choose to deal by the laws of commerce which exist as and when they conduct their actions. You have choses to ignore contract; that makes you the initiator of force.
You chose not to buy there!
Why is this so difficult to comprehend? No-one forced you to buy! You are free to go anywhere else! To buy whatever you want, so long as you can afford it and the merchant is willing to sell to you.
The DOJ propose to use force against Microsoft, laws which are backed up by prisons and armed police.
If the /. crowd truly cared about freedom of the individual and of the mind, you'd all be fighting tooth and nail against the DOJ.
I seem to recall a time in Holland (IIRC) when the government changed the working conditions of medical doctors. Many of them wished to leave the country - so the government conscripted them all into the Army to stop them. The moral of this story is clear: The only power governments have is physical force, and one day they might use it on you.
gets caught doing bad things and then has the audacity to get mad about it.
Antitrust law is retroactive, which means that even if something was perfectly legal when you actually did it, if it is subsequently declared illegal you are still liable.
This means that there is no way to tell if you are breaking the law when you do something, because the law doesn't exist yet! Microsoft's phalanx of corporate lawyers would never have broken existing laws, Bill is too smart for that.
software you can tell he believes all
software should come from him for some divine reason only he knows about.
As is the goal of all software development projects. If you were to take a straw poll on
Bill was never really a hacker in the first place like so many Unix
heroes were/are, he just funded projects and used other people's work to his
advantage
More FUD and lies. Bill's simply more successful than anyone else because he was the first to realise the truth: There is no such thing as a software project, there are only business projects with a software element.
Buying out every company with an idea and forcing companies to use only
your products isn't "Freedom to Innovate" Bill.
Force is the sole monopoly of governments. The only force here is that applied by the DOJ. Microsoft has no guns and no laws to compel people to obey, only the free judgement of the rational individuals who freely trade with them, everyone from the home PC user to megacorporations like Compaq and IBM. No-one has ever compelled you to trade with MS, you have always done do freely - it is a central fact that no-one has the right to buy whatever they want, only what they are offered for sale.
It has always been possible to buy components and assemble your own PC - even if you are incapable of doing so, you cannot demand the world adapt itself to your whims. You can only buy what is offered for sale - either a preinstalled box or take the time to find a niche manufacturer.
Microsoft's only crime is that they are the ALCOA of the 90's.
creates a barrier for would-be builders.
The statement is nonsense. The "problem" with the model is that very few people have the credibility and the experience to attract investment - it's as simple as that.
And, of course, that's exactly how it should be. Investing capital in any venture regardless of merit led directly to the great depression in the '30s, and would quickly break any investor who tried it in the modern world.
Note that the gameplay in Quake, Quake II, Unreal, Half Life &c isn't particularly differentiated: it's the engines (graphics, physics, logic) that set these apart. This is the case to a lesser extent with movies.
Actually, Perl is more like the Rexx of the '90s. Python, if we're drawing analogies not in language model but sociologically is barely even the PL/1 of the 90's.
IBM et al. fully intend to make Java the COBOL of the 00's - literally a common business oriented language. If the industry makes it the Ada of the 00's too, then so much the better (but I do very much like Ada). And I hope they succeed. COBOL itself is obsolete (even Microsfocus Object COBOL) and C++ ins't suitable for large scale projects (for many reasons, many of which are detailed in the Java white papers).
Personally, I prefer to use PL/SQL, and that's going to be the de facto business language for a good long time yet. With that and Java, I don't expect to be obsolete for the next couple of decades.
This is one of the things that really annoyed me when I started using TCP/IP. With DECnet, users as well as machines are considered network principals, and DECnet protocols mean you can happily grant connections based on node and user ,assuming, of course, that you trust VMS login/authentication, but it's very good so there's no reason not to. Especially as so many people are trusting NIS+ and LDAP these days.
Bill Gates was born with millionair parents.
Really? He actually founded Microsoft with money won playing poker (a la Han Solo winning the Millenium Falcon playing Sabacc).
As for ESR being a hero, what's he actually *done* apart from make a lot of noise? He shouldn't even be mentioned in the same paragraph as the real "heroes" like RMS.
easy. In Unix systems, you have r00t and the unwashed masses, and that's it.
On NT, you have specific rights like "Back Up the System" or "Log On as a Service" or "Change the System Time" which means you can assign specific rights to specific users without ever needing one All Powerful Account.
A clue: you can't dis NT until you actually know it. Since you don't, nothing you say has any weight.
It would be if they were actually spending real $, but it's mostly stock swaps, which are worth billions on paper, but don't map back onto any sort of assets.
to communicate (aka. freedom of expression, free speech, etc.).
Nonsense. Your life is given to you, your survival is not - it requires the application of your mind. It also requires the right of use and disposal over the creations of actions driven by your mind. Therefore, any idea which opposes private ownership of the product of the mind is anti-survival, and hence evil.
Aye - and you can't Xerox a loaf of bread either - but even open source author's gotta eat.
This is why their model is broken; because value must eventually resolve to an asset.
Typically, Collectivist governments participate in policies which appear to support freedom but are in fact the opposite, for example the US government conscripted individuals and sent them out to die to "defend" freedom. But since the government doesn't even respect the right of it's citizens to live, what rights can their possibly be?
Another common Collectivist policy is to penalise the productive, such that the non-productive may benefit.
My problem with RMS is that not only does he wish to give his property away (which, of course, is his right), he wishes to establish a system where everyone is obligated to give away their property. Without property, there can be no other rights.
Well, for what it's worth, RMS may not be a communist, but he certainly is a collectivist, and that's just as bad in my book, But that isn't the point.
What really irritates me is the way Linux is packaged for consumption by the world. Linux is nothing but the kernel itself, yet somehow the "linux community" gets the credit for the complete system (unlike the BSD crowd, who *do* actually maintain the whole lot). And ESR can't keep out of the limelight - he seems to think that since he coined the term "open source" he's in fact personally responsible for the entire movement!
In reality, in terms of LOC or hours worked or any other metric, RMS and his FSF, or the BSD crowd, or UCB are responsible for far more of the average distribution than the "linux community". And it's ESR and his dreams of glory who obstructing the acceptance of the true prime movers, like RMS.